How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (2 Viewers)

[H.K.]

I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history.

Packer fans (the real ones, not some of the message board posers in this thread with jealousy based vendettas against Favre) all agree with you. It is criminal what has happened to that franchise.

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

 

[Mr.Pack]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

Steve Young>Aaron Rodgers

Well :duh:Let's see what happens 10 years down the line, unless you have a crystal ball.Who knows what will happen in the coming years.

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GM's have a plan for future years but think about winning in year N. Year N+1 is the plan and who's contract is up and what prospects might be coming out in the draft and what free agents the team has. Year N is about winning and putting the best team forward. Good GM's worry about Year N with Year N+1 on their mind but not at the cost of Year N... especially when Year N-1 was a 13-3 season.

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

And another post not about the topic but just about me.Maybe try having an original thought about what is going on...rather than just agreeing with anyone who bashes me...and you calling anyone else a homer is hilarious.

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GM's have a plan for future years but think about winning in year N. Year N+1 is the plan and who's contract is up and what prospects might be coming out in the draft and what free agents the team has. Year N is about winning and putting the best team forward. Good GM's worry about Year N with Year N+1 on their mind but not at the cost of Year N... especially when Year N-1 was a 13-3 season.

This should always be true. I think Arizona this year is a good case in point. Obviously Warner is not the long term answer. He might be around another year or two, but will certainly be gone by 2011. And while the Cardinals are a pretty good team this year, I don't think many actually believe they will win the Super Bowl. But Warner gives them the best chance to win games, to make the playoffs, and so on. Even if they don't make the Super Bowl and win it, I think most will consider this season a success - even if Warner retires and the Cardinals are stuck starting Leinart next season. So, just because their chances of actually winning the Super Bowl may be slim, throwing Leinart in there instead of Warner is simply not the answer, even if there is a chance they'll be stuck starting him as early as 2009. The success they're having this season with Warner far outweighs whatever positives might have come from throwing Leinart out there every week just to watch him suck.

Thats great...did Warner retire this offseason? Did he then say he wanted to come back only to waffle on that several times?Until that happens, the situations are not very comparable. Warner has stayed and other than one thought about hanging it up after Boldin got hurt, he has not talked of retirement.

 

[parasaurolophus]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

People said all offseason that the team would probably be better "THIS YEAR" with Favre. I said as much over and over during the whole will they trade him deal.

That is why it was a mistake for TT to make the decison to move on without Favre this year when he could have waited at least one more year to turn things over to Rodgers.

IMO, that is yet to be determined.Nobody can say for sure that they would really be any better with Favre this year. And then what? What if Rodgers decided not to resign and then you lose him too...and Brohm and Flynn suck...and even with Favre they don't win it all. Where are they then.TT made the decision for more than just this season.

Resign? It's called franchise tag. Rodgers would have signed an extension. If he didn't, franchise his ###. They should have kepth both, clearly.

You don't have any idea what Rodgers would have done had they taken Favre back.And franchise? Are you freakin kidding? Pay a guy top 5 money without having him ever start?I am so glad some of you are not the GM of the Packers and Ted Thompson is.Some of you all would run this team into the ground way worse than Sherman did.

pay a guy top 4 money after 6 starts? it only sounds crazy if helps your argument right?

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GM's have a plan for future years but think about winning in year N. Year N+1 is the plan and who's contract is up and what prospects might be coming out in the draft and what free agents the team has. Year N is about winning and putting the best team forward. Good GM's worry about Year N with Year N+1 on their mind but not at the cost of Year N... especially when Year N-1 was a 13-3 season.

This should always be true. I think Arizona this year is a good case in point. Obviously Warner is not the long term answer. He might be around another year or two, but will certainly be gone by 2011. And while the Cardinals are a pretty good team this year, I don't think many actually believe they will win the Super Bowl. But Warner gives them the best chance to win games, to make the playoffs, and so on. Even if they don't make the Super Bowl and win it, I think most will consider this season a success - even if Warner retires and the Cardinals are stuck starting Leinart next season. So, just because their chances of actually winning the Super Bowl may be slim, throwing Leinart in there instead of Warner is simply not the answer, even if there is a chance they'll be stuck starting him as early as 2009. The success they're having this season with Warner far outweighs whatever positives might have come from throwing Leinart out there every week just to watch him suck.

Also, for sho'nuff I have heard enough of sho'nuff.

For anyone who cares, I am a lifetime Packers fan, and I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history. Already, some homers are comparing this to the Hershel Walker trade. It is that bad. Atleast the Jets get that superbowl trophies are worth more than draft picks. I don't care about all the stats in this thread that people try to make their points with -- they are all biased. The truth is, that the Packers are a Brett Favre away from being superbowl contenders -- by choice. How TT has not been fired and already run out of town by that is beyond me.

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

The problem you have...is that a majority of Packer fans seem to agree with what I have been saying and realize that this team is more than a Brett Favre away.The Jets were not just a Brett Favre away from being a winner either.

Stats are all biased? Do you even read what you wrote there?

How TT has not been fired is because he and everyone that deals with football operations for the Green Bay Packers agreed on what they were doing and know what they are doing far more than you or I.

 

[bcr8f]

I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history.

Packer fans (the real ones, not some of the message board posers in this thread with jealousy based vendettas against Favre) all agree with you. It is criminal what has happened to that franchise.

Why is this thread still alive?HK = trading a 39 year old QB for a potential 1st round pick has a vendetta against Favre.

 

[sho nuff]

I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history.

Packer fans (the real ones, not some of the message board posers in this thread with jealousy based vendettas against Favre) all agree with you. It is criminal what has happened to that franchise.

Again...an of you care to back up this "the real Packer fans" crap?Sorry, I have no jealousy based vendetta against Favre. What am I jealous of?I defended the guy for years and years...there is no vendetta at all.And the majority of fans both on message boards and just about every poll ever taken...do not agree that TT is as bad as you all are claiming.You simply have no facts to back that up.Sure...some of you will talk about people calling into talk radio....ever wonder why usually negative people call in?Heck...2 years ago people were calling in down here to get rid of Jeff Fisher...thats the extreme position people take when people who don't know as much about football as they think they do...call up to talk radio shows to complain because the team is not doing exactly what they want it to be doing.

 

[sho nuff]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

People said all offseason that the team would probably be better "THIS YEAR" with Favre. I said as much over and over during the whole will they trade him deal.

That is why it was a mistake for TT to make the decison to move on without Favre this year when he could have waited at least one more year to turn things over to Rodgers.

IMO, that is yet to be determined.Nobody can say for sure that they would really be any better with Favre this year. And then what? What if Rodgers decided not to resign and then you lose him too...and Brohm and Flynn suck...and even with Favre they don't win it all. Where are they then.TT made the decision for more than just this season.

Resign? It's called franchise tag. Rodgers would have signed an extension. If he didn't, franchise his ###. They should have kepth both, clearly.

You don't have any idea what Rodgers would have done had they taken Favre back.And franchise? Are you freakin kidding? Pay a guy top 5 money without having him ever start?I am so glad some of you are not the GM of the Packers and Ted Thompson is.Some of you all would run this team into the ground way worse than Sherman did.

pay a guy top 4 money after 6 starts? it only sounds crazy if helps your argument right?

Might want to really look at his contract and what he is paid per year...rather than just the whole contract. We all know most will never see their entire contracts.And after 6 starts is far better than considering a franchise tag without seeing him play. Talk about a way to get a GM run out of town...I can't imagine anyone else would think it would be a good idea...

 

[Tau837]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

 

[H.K.]

HK = trading a 39 year old QB for a potential 1st round pick has a vendetta against Favre.

Is that English?

 

[H.K.]

I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history.

Packer fans (the real ones, not some of the message board posers in this thread with jealousy based vendettas against Favre) all agree with you. It is criminal what has happened to that franchise.

Again...an of you care to back up this "the real Packer fans" crap?Sorry, I have no jealousy based vendetta against Favre. What am I jealous of?I defended the guy for years and years...there is no vendetta at all.And the majority of fans both on message boards and just about every poll ever taken...do not agree that TT is as bad as you all are claiming.You simply have no facts to back that up.Sure...some of you will talk about people calling into talk radio....ever wonder why usually negative people call in?Heck...2 years ago people were calling in down here to get rid of Jeff Fisher...thats the extreme position people take when people who don't know as much about football as they think they do...call up to talk radio shows to complain because the team is not doing exactly what they want it to be doing.

Classic! On many levels.

 

[bcr8f]

HK = trading a 39 year old QB for a potential 1st round pick has a vendetta against Favre.

Is that English?

That's all you got?

 

[H.K.]

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

Packer fans (real ones) do not support Thompson.

 

[parasaurolophus]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

Steve Young>Aaron Rodgers

Well :duh:Let's see what happens 10 years down the line, unless you have a crystal ball.

Who knows what will happen in the coming years.

you should probably do a little more reading about how the niners got rid of Montana. they had a very healthy dose already of what steve young offered. I am fairly certain they got to watch him lead the league in passer rating at least once or maybe even twice before they got rid of Joe.

ETA: just looked it up. he won an AP MVP award before they got rid of Joe according to pro football reference if i am reading this right.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/Y/YounSt00.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...tJo01.htm?redir

 

[H.K.]

HK = trading a 39 year old QB for a potential 1st round pick has a vendetta against Favre.

Is that English?

That's all you got?

Sadly, yes. I can't interpret the meaning behind your poorly worded phrase. Therefore, it's impossible to respond to it.

 

[ScottyFargo]

John Clayton stated on ESPN radio this morning that it is widely accepted around the league that the Packers would be a better team with Favre. Clayton stated you don't go to a good quarterback when you have a great quarterback.

People said all offseason that the team would probably be better "THIS YEAR" with Favre. I said as much over and over during the whole will they trade him deal.

That is why it was a mistake for TT to make the decison to move on without Favre this year when he could have waited at least one more year to turn things over to Rodgers.

IMO, that is yet to be determined.Nobody can say for sure that they would really be any better with Favre this year. And then what? What if Rodgers decided not to resign and then you lose him too...and Brohm and Flynn suck...and even with Favre they don't win it all. Where are they then.TT made the decision for more than just this season.

Resign? It's called franchise tag. Rodgers would have signed an extension. If he didn't, franchise his ###. They should have kepth both, clearly.

You don't have any idea what Rodgers would have done had they taken Favre back.And franchise? Are you freakin kidding? Pay a guy top 5 money without having him ever start?I am so glad some of you are not the GM of the Packers and Ted Thompson is.Some of you all would run this team into the ground way worse than Sherman did.

pay a guy top 4 money after 6 starts? it only sounds crazy if helps your argument right?

I agree that the contract offered to Rodgers was still quite premature and rings more of trying to validate their decision early in spite of the teams record, but franchising Rodgers without him starting makes less sense given they wouldn't watch him play. But it was an option, as well as simply renegotiating the contract over the course of the season might have been. Essentially, the end result is the same because the Packers bent over backwards for Rodgers to sign him early just as they would have had to overreach if they chose to franchise him. But let's face it, if you HAVE to have him for a year to see if he's a worthy replacement, and you have some 30 million in cap space as the Pack did after trading Favre, then who really cares what he's getting paid if you can take the hit, keep the best chance at winning a superbowl now AND in the future?I still don't believe that this season it was super-imperative to sweep Favre aside to hand the reigns over to Rodgers to make sure he wasn't getting too impatient. The Packers could have made it work but there was a personal problem between Thompson and Favre and that's why Favre wanted his release and Thompson wanted to pay him off to stay retired.

 

[Tau837]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

Why do people insist on using this comparison? It's not the same thing at all.1. Montana was injured for 2 full seasons after the 1990 14-2 season you mentioned. The 49ers turned to Young out of necessity. And by the time Montana was able to play again, Young had just won the NFL MVP and led the 49ers to a 14-2 regular season record and the NFC Championship game. They already knew at that point that they had the best QB in the NFL in Young.2. Yes, the 49ers missed the playoffs in 1991... with a 10-6 record, missing out on wild card tiebreakers. That looks a lot better than how the Packers are likely to end up this year.3. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing how it worked out for the 49ers. Are you suggesting that you expect the Packers to make the playoffs for the next 7 years after this one? That Rodgers will be a HOF QB? If not, what's the point of your comparison?

 

[Gambino]

This thread makes me wish they would shut down the entire internet.

 

[sho nuff]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

And most real fans realize Thompson blew up the team in 2005...he made mistakes for sure...but that team was going to fall backwards no matter who took over...as Sherman left him with an old roster with little to no depth.We have said that Rodgers is not the main issue. Sure, there is some blame there...a dropoff at the position was expected. Not sure how many times you need to read that before you get it right.

sure, we expected them to be in the playoffs even this year. And will expect it next year too.

But now you are talking what ifs? How about this one. What will it take for the TT bashers to actually support the guy? Anything short of a SB win?

 

[sho nuff]

I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history.

Packer fans (the real ones, not some of the message board posers in this thread with jealousy based vendettas against Favre) all agree with you. It is criminal what has happened to that franchise.

Again...an of you care to back up this "the real Packer fans" crap?Sorry, I have no jealousy based vendetta against Favre. What am I jealous of?I defended the guy for years and years...there is no vendetta at all.And the majority of fans both on message boards and just about every poll ever taken...do not agree that TT is as bad as you all are claiming.You simply have no facts to back that up.Sure...some of you will talk about people calling into talk radio....ever wonder why usually negative people call in?Heck...2 years ago people were calling in down here to get rid of Jeff Fisher...thats the extreme position people take when people who don't know as much about football as they think they do...call up to talk radio shows to complain because the team is not doing exactly what they want it to be doing.

Ill take that as an admission you don't have anything to back up your claim and only wish to mock.Thanks.And I guess its about as classic as you talking about Jennings right? Classic! On many levels.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

Enough of this nonsense from you.TT DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTACT WITH FAVRE PRIOR TO HIS RETIREMENT!! That is a fact! If TT wanted Favre back all he had to do was let him know that but he didn't make any effort prior to to the retirement to express to Brett he was wanted.Terry Bradshaw just last week and many other NFL writers/media have stated it is widely known that TT did not want Favre back for the last two years. There have been articles written that stated TT made the decision as early as December to not have Favre back.Of course Favre would be hesitant to come back because he had to know that TT didn't want him back. Why would anyone committ to a team knowing the GM doesn't want you back.TT could have had Favre back for one more year and turned the team over to Rodgers next year. He didn't do that. Quit putting the blame on Favre for not being in GB. Why can't you admit that TT did not want Favre back when it known throughout the NFL?

 

[sho nuff]

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

Packer fans (real ones) do not support Thompson.

Link?...and I love how anyone who supports Thompson is not a real fan.Too funny.

 

[MDSkinner]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?

So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

As another Bears fan (who finds this thread immensely entertaining) I don't think we could do much worse than Angelo. But that is not really the point in this thread and I don't think that is at all what sweetness was saying. He is simply enjoying the fact that you have a guy who makes some bad decisions as well (and in the long run it may end up being the best decision he ever made). Misery loves company and we have had a bad GM for ages.I think I can speak for many Bears fans when I say that I am ecstatic that Favre is no longer with the Packers. We took a massive beat down by you guys last week and Rodgers looked great in that game. If he can do that another 30 or so times then I might take back my previous statement of being ecstatic that Favre is gone and off on another team.

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

Enough of this nonsense from you.TT DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTACT WITH FAVRE PRIOR TO HIS RETIREMENT!! That is a fact! If TT wanted Favre back all he had to do was let him know that but he didn't make any effort prior to to the retirement to express to Brett he was wanted.Terry Bradshaw just last week and many other NFL writers/media have stated it is widely known that TT did not want Favre back for the last two years. There have been articles written that stated TT made the decision as early as December to not have Favre back.Of course Favre would be hesitant to come back because he had to know that TT didn't want him back. Why would anyone committ to a team knowing the GM doesn't want you back.TT could have had Favre back for one more year and turned the team over to Rodgers next year. He didn't do that. Quit putting the blame on Favre for not being in GB. Why can't you admit that TT did not want Favre back when it known throughout the NFL?

Enough of the nonsense from you too. TT let McCarthy talk to Favre...and did so weekly.You would have a point if I ever said TT begged Favre to return. I never did.But not once did TT or McCArthy or any member of the Packers organization tell Brett he was not wanted.Pretty much everyone around said they would have taken him back...even after the owners meeting they would have.You went from executives to write and media? There has been one article by Bob McGinn...probably the same one Bradshaw (and sorry, now using Terry Bradshaw as a source is just kind of funny) that said they (not just TT but everyone involved in football operations) was ready to move on.Ready to move on does not mean they would not have taken him back had he decided not to retire in the first place.Favre was hesitant...and read into what he and his family said...because TT did not do enough to convince him...like sign Randy Moss or trade for Moss...or hire Mooch...or the numerous other things Favre complained about. He wanted to be begged...instead, TT treated him like an adult and let him make his own decision. Favre could not committ by their deadline (because they had to prepare for the draft) and he retired. He said so himself.He could have had him back...sure...Favre could have also never retired...but that did not happen.You have to put some of the blame on Favre...not doing so is completely short sighted IMO.Some of it is on TT for how it happened...but in the end, Favre made the decision to retire...Favre played the games just like TT did this offseason. WHy don't you get that?

 

[Mr.Pack]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

This thread and the clowns who are posting in it is becoming more absurd by the minute, and I am done with it. Lets get some facts straight for you and not just the stuff that's easy to post without fact.Fact - TT took over in 2005. The Packers were over the salary cap thanks to Shermans bungling.

Fact - cuts had to be made to get under the cap. TT made some difficult choices.

Fact - That season they had numerous injuries. Ahman Green suffered a season ender, his back up Najeh Davenport had a season ender, Javon Walker had a season ender.

Fact - the season was a mess from the beginning, they finished 4-12. TT's fault? I think not.

Fact - 2006. The rebuilding around Favre started and they finished 8-8. Could have TT done more? Absolutely, but they still fought back to 8-8.

Fact - 2007. The Packers finished 13-3 and one win away from the Super Bowl. Awesome year, but IMHO this team wasn't as good as it's record. Not many injuries and everything fell into place. If not for a horrible pass by Favre at the end of the game, they might have gone on to be the NFC Champs.

I have never been a TT supporter, but the facts pretty much show he has built up a nice team. Did he make a major error in not keeping Favre? maybe, but Favre wanted out, he said that. This is a business and Favre was a bit too sensitive and had his feelings hurt. TT wasn't going to let Favre hamstring the team again, and he put his foot down. For that I don't blame him.

We won't know how this will shake out for a few years, but this whole thread needs to be locked because it's turned into a pathetic POS.

this thread is as bad as Tony Kornheiser.

/thread for me.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

Enough of this nonsense from you.TT DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTACT WITH FAVRE PRIOR TO HIS RETIREMENT!! That is a fact! If TT wanted Favre back all he had to do was let him know that but he didn't make any effort prior to to the retirement to express to Brett he was wanted.Terry Bradshaw just last week and many other NFL writers/media have stated it is widely known that TT did not want Favre back for the last two years. There have been articles written that stated TT made the decision as early as December to not have Favre back.Of course Favre would be hesitant to come back because he had to know that TT didn't want him back. Why would anyone committ to a team knowing the GM doesn't want you back.TT could have had Favre back for one more year and turned the team over to Rodgers next year. He didn't do that. Quit putting the blame on Favre for not being in GB. Why can't you admit that TT did not want Favre back when it known throughout the NFL?

Enough of the nonsense from you too. TT let McCarthy talk to Favre...and did so weekly.You would have a point if I ever said TT begged Favre to return. I never did.But not once did TT or McCArthy or any member of the Packers organization tell Brett he was not wanted.Pretty much everyone around said they would have taken him back...even after the owners meeting they would have.You went from executives to write and media? There has been one article by Bob McGinn...probably the same one Bradshaw (and sorry, now using Terry Bradshaw as a source is just kind of funny) that said they (not just TT but everyone involved in football operations) was ready to move on.Ready to move on does not mean they would not have taken him back had he decided not to retire in the first place.Favre was hesitant...and read into what he and his family said...because TT did not do enough to convince him...like sign Randy Moss or trade for Moss...or hire Mooch...or the numerous other things Favre complained about. He wanted to be begged...instead, TT treated him like an adult and let him make his own decision. Favre could not committ by their deadline (because they had to prepare for the draft) and he retired. He said so himself.He could have had him back...sure...Favre could have also never retired...but that did not happen.You have to put some of the blame on Favre...not doing so is completely short sighted IMO.Some of it is on TT for how it happened...but in the end, Favre made the decision to retire...Favre played the games just like TT did this offseason. WHy don't you get that?

WOW! I really hope Santa brings you a dose of reality for Christmas.

 

[Mr.Pack]

This thread makes me wish they would shut down the entire internet.

Ok, THIS is the /thread for me.

 

[ScottyFargo]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

Enough of this nonsense from you.TT DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTACT WITH FAVRE PRIOR TO HIS RETIREMENT!! That is a fact! If TT wanted Favre back all he had to do was let him know that but he didn't make any effort prior to to the retirement to express to Brett he was wanted.Terry Bradshaw just last week and many other NFL writers/media have stated it is widely known that TT did not want Favre back for the last two years. There have been articles written that stated TT made the decision as early as December to not have Favre back.Of course Favre would be hesitant to come back because he had to know that TT didn't want him back. Why would anyone committ to a team knowing the GM doesn't want you back.TT could have had Favre back for one more year and turned the team over to Rodgers next year. He didn't do that. Quit putting the blame on Favre for not being in GB. Why can't you admit that TT did not want Favre back when it known throughout the NFL?

Enough of the nonsense from you too. TT let McCarthy talk to Favre...and did so weekly.You would have a point if I ever said TT begged Favre to return. I never did.But not once did TT or McCArthy or any member of the Packers organization tell Brett he was not wanted.Pretty much everyone around said they would have taken him back...even after the owners meeting they would have.You went from executives to write and media? There has been one article by Bob McGinn...probably the same one Bradshaw (and sorry, now using Terry Bradshaw as a source is just kind of funny) that said they (not just TT but everyone involved in football operations) was ready to move on.Ready to move on does not mean they would not have taken him back had he decided not to retire in the first place.Favre was hesitant...and read into what he and his family said...because TT did not do enough to convince him...like sign Randy Moss or trade for Moss...or hire Mooch...or the numerous other things Favre complained about. He wanted to be begged...instead, TT treated him like an adult and let him make his own decision. Favre could not committ by their deadline (because they had to prepare for the draft) and he retired. He said so himself.He could have had him back...sure...Favre could have also never retired...but that did not happen.You have to put some of the blame on Favre...not doing so is completely short sighted IMO.Some of it is on TT for how it happened...but in the end, Favre made the decision to retire...Favre played the games just like TT did this offseason. WHy don't you get that?

Favre was a primadonna. Maybe TT was sick of cow-towing to his will-I-or-won't-I, his demands, his larger than life persona. So he kicked him to the curb ONLY to satisfy his BACKUP QB, who had never won a game? To the point of signing him to a top contract only WEEKS into the season? To possibly create a situation where the team has to rebuild after a season in which they made it to the NFC Championship game? That doesn't seem like the best strategy to me, seems like a lot of decisions were made out of spite.I for one am very glad that Favre did not play for the Packers this year.

 

[Tau837]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

And most real fans realize Thompson blew up the team in 2005...he made mistakes for sure...but that team was going to fall backwards no matter who took over...as Sherman left him with an old roster with little to no depth.We have said that Rodgers is not the main issue. Sure, there is some blame there...a dropoff at the position was expected. Not sure how many times you need to read that before you get it right.

sure, we expected them to be in the playoffs even this year. And will expect it next year too.

But now you are talking what ifs? How about this one. What will it take for the TT bashers to actually support the guy? Anything short of a SB win?

I don't consider myself a Thompson basher, though I think some of the unqualified support he gets around here is unjustified. To answer your question, the following things would help a lot:More than 1 winning season

More than 1 playoff appearance

At least 1 playoff win with his anointed QB

A record quite a bit better than 30-29

 

[parasaurolophus]

Can we stop the lame "real packer fan" schtick.

You can hate TT or love TT and still be a Packer fan. You can name two starters or 22 starters and still be a real Packer fan.

Obviously people who supported getting rid of Favre arent going to want to admit that it was a bad move. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. Technically you cant even say they are wrong yet. The season isnt over. Rodgers could blow up, Favre could go in the tank and TT would look like a genius.

There is still plenty of season left. I hope the Packers can turn this around and squeak in. If they dont, it will be unfair to Rodgers. He seems like a good guy and looks like he will be a decent to very good QB. He will never win over the fans if the Packers miss the playoffs two years in a row after going 13-3 when everybody thought up was the only way this team was going(and I dont mean record wise as it is possible to be a better team and be 12-4).

His contract would quickly be the only thing everybody talks about and how we miss the good ole days with Favre.

 

[Tau837]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

This thread and the clowns who are posting in it is becoming more absurd by the minute, and I am done with it. Lets get some facts straight for you and not just the stuff that's easy to post without fact.Fact - TT took over in 2005. The Packers were over the salary cap thanks to Shermans bungling.

Fact - cuts had to be made to get under the cap. TT made some difficult choices.

Fact - That season they had numerous injuries. Ahman Green suffered a season ender, his back up Najeh Davenport had a season ender, Javon Walker had a season ender.

Fact - the season was a mess from the beginning, they finished 4-12. TT's fault? I think not.

Fact - 2006. The rebuilding around Favre started and they finished 8-8. Could have TT done more? Absolutely, but they still fought back to 8-8.

Fact - 2007. The Packers finished 13-3 and one win away from the Super Bowl. Awesome year, but IMHO this team wasn't as good as it's record. Not many injuries and everything fell into place. If not for a horrible pass by Favre at the end of the game, they might have gone on to be the NFC Champs.

I have never been a TT supporter, but the facts pretty much show he has built up a nice team. Did he make a major error in not keeping Favre? maybe, but Favre wanted out, he said that. This is a business and Favre was a bit too sensitive and had his feelings hurt. TT wasn't going to let Favre hamstring the team again, and he put his foot down. For that I don't blame him.

We won't know how this will shake out for a few years, but this whole thread needs to be locked because it's turned into a pathetic POS.

this thread is as bad as Tony Kornheiser.

/thread for me.

Pretty arrogant post. You seem to know all these facts, yet you are the one who posted that Thompson took over a 4-12 team, which is untrue. And you respond angrily to my post, all the while implying that what I posted was incorrect... yet everything I posted about records and playoff appearances is absolute fact.Sure, Thompson took over a team that had issues. It was his choice to blow it up and start over in the manner he did. IMO there was probably more than one way to go about fixing the problems. Thompson chose his path, and has a 30-29 record to show for it so far. Maybe he will be proven right in the end, if the Packers go on to several playoff appearances over the next decade... we don't really know at this point. But 4 years in, the results are pretty underwhelming. If you disagree with that, then maybe you just have low expectations.

 

[ScottyFargo]

8 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

8 Members: ScottyFargo, MDSkinner, Just Win Baby, Mr.Pack, springroll, Ookie Pringle, sho nuff, ahmngrn30

Somebody isn't as done with this thread as he wants us to believe!

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

Enough of this nonsense from you.TT DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTACT WITH FAVRE PRIOR TO HIS RETIREMENT!! That is a fact! If TT wanted Favre back all he had to do was let him know that but he didn't make any effort prior to to the retirement to express to Brett he was wanted.Terry Bradshaw just last week and many other NFL writers/media have stated it is widely known that TT did not want Favre back for the last two years. There have been articles written that stated TT made the decision as early as December to not have Favre back.Of course Favre would be hesitant to come back because he had to know that TT didn't want him back. Why would anyone committ to a team knowing the GM doesn't want you back.TT could have had Favre back for one more year and turned the team over to Rodgers next year. He didn't do that. Quit putting the blame on Favre for not being in GB. Why can't you admit that TT did not want Favre back when it known throughout the NFL?

Enough of the nonsense from you too. TT let McCarthy talk to Favre...and did so weekly.You would have a point if I ever said TT begged Favre to return. I never did.But not once did TT or McCArthy or any member of the Packers organization tell Brett he was not wanted.Pretty much everyone around said they would have taken him back...even after the owners meeting they would have.You went from executives to write and media? There has been one article by Bob McGinn...probably the same one Bradshaw (and sorry, now using Terry Bradshaw as a source is just kind of funny) that said they (not just TT but everyone involved in football operations) was ready to move on.Ready to move on does not mean they would not have taken him back had he decided not to retire in the first place.Favre was hesitant...and read into what he and his family said...because TT did not do enough to convince him...like sign Randy Moss or trade for Moss...or hire Mooch...or the numerous other things Favre complained about. He wanted to be begged...instead, TT treated him like an adult and let him make his own decision. Favre could not committ by their deadline (because they had to prepare for the draft) and he retired. He said so himself.He could have had him back...sure...Favre could have also never retired...but that did not happen.You have to put some of the blame on Favre...not doing so is completely short sighted IMO.Some of it is on TT for how it happened...but in the end, Favre made the decision to retire...Favre played the games just like TT did this offseason. WHy don't you get that?

WOW! I really hope Santa brings you a dose of reality for Christmas.

In other words...you will make this general statement but cannot refute a single word I said right?Care to venture what part I said that was not true?

 

[sho nuff]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

Enough of this nonsense from you.TT DID NOT MAKE ANY CONTACT WITH FAVRE PRIOR TO HIS RETIREMENT!! That is a fact! If TT wanted Favre back all he had to do was let him know that but he didn't make any effort prior to to the retirement to express to Brett he was wanted.Terry Bradshaw just last week and many other NFL writers/media have stated it is widely known that TT did not want Favre back for the last two years. There have been articles written that stated TT made the decision as early as December to not have Favre back.Of course Favre would be hesitant to come back because he had to know that TT didn't want him back. Why would anyone committ to a team knowing the GM doesn't want you back.TT could have had Favre back for one more year and turned the team over to Rodgers next year. He didn't do that. Quit putting the blame on Favre for not being in GB. Why can't you admit that TT did not want Favre back when it known throughout the NFL?

Enough of the nonsense from you too. TT let McCarthy talk to Favre...and did so weekly.You would have a point if I ever said TT begged Favre to return. I never did.But not once did TT or McCArthy or any member of the Packers organization tell Brett he was not wanted.Pretty much everyone around said they would have taken him back...even after the owners meeting they would have.You went from executives to write and media? There has been one article by Bob McGinn...probably the same one Bradshaw (and sorry, now using Terry Bradshaw as a source is just kind of funny) that said they (not just TT but everyone involved in football operations) was ready to move on.Ready to move on does not mean they would not have taken him back had he decided not to retire in the first place.Favre was hesitant...and read into what he and his family said...because TT did not do enough to convince him...like sign Randy Moss or trade for Moss...or hire Mooch...or the numerous other things Favre complained about. He wanted to be begged...instead, TT treated him like an adult and let him make his own decision. Favre could not committ by their deadline (because they had to prepare for the draft) and he retired. He said so himself.He could have had him back...sure...Favre could have also never retired...but that did not happen.You have to put some of the blame on Favre...not doing so is completely short sighted IMO.Some of it is on TT for how it happened...but in the end, Favre made the decision to retire...Favre played the games just like TT did this offseason. WHy don't you get that?

Favre was a primadonna. Maybe TT was sick of cow-towing to his will-I-or-won't-I, his demands, his larger than life persona. So he kicked him to the curb ONLY to satisfy his BACKUP QB, who had never won a game? To the point of signing him to a top contract only WEEKS into the season? To possibly create a situation where the team has to rebuild after a season in which they made it to the NFC Championship game? That doesn't seem like the best strategy to me, seems like a lot of decisions were made out of spite.I for one am very glad that Favre did not play for the Packers this year.

Only he did not kick him to the curb. Some of you act as if he just out of the blue traded him back in March.To the point signing him once Rodgers proved he could play pretty well.As for decisions out of spite...you could say the same for Favre. Look at his comments and his families about what they felt TT did or did not do for Favre.And everyone keeps singling out TT as if this decision was just all his. Now, as the GM, of course he is the up front figure who will get the blame...but it has been well documented that pretty much everyone who deals with football operations backed him up on this and agreed.

 

[sho nuff]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

And most real fans realize Thompson blew up the team in 2005...he made mistakes for sure...but that team was going to fall backwards no matter who took over...as Sherman left him with an old roster with little to no depth.We have said that Rodgers is not the main issue. Sure, there is some blame there...a dropoff at the position was expected. Not sure how many times you need to read that before you get it right.

sure, we expected them to be in the playoffs even this year. And will expect it next year too.

But now you are talking what ifs? How about this one. What will it take for the TT bashers to actually support the guy? Anything short of a SB win?

I don't consider myself a Thompson basher, though I think some of the unqualified support he gets around here is unjustified. To answer your question, the following things would help a lot:More than 1 winning season

More than 1 playoff appearance

At least 1 playoff win with his anointed QB

A record quite a bit better than 30-29

I think some of you bash just to bash...maybe not you personally...but some are still wrapped up in the emotion that is Brett Favre.My support of him in not unqualified...I have said where I think he has screwed up in his time year...but I prefer his style to Shermans. Sherman even had a pretty good record...but that does not mean he did things correctly and did not hurt the franchise in the long run.

I agree...he will need to do more and produce more to show he is successful, and I think he will.

But some are already calling for him to be fired...so getting more than 1 winning season or more than one playoff appearance will not appease many who have been going on in this thread.

 

[sho nuff]

Can we stop the lame "real packer fan" schtick.You can hate TT or love TT and still be a Packer fan. You can name two starters or 22 starters and still be a real Packer fan. Obviously people who supported getting rid of Favre arent going to want to admit that it was a bad move. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. Technically you cant even say they are wrong yet. The season isnt over. Rodgers could blow up, Favre could go in the tank and TT would look like a genius. There is still plenty of season left. I hope the Packers can turn this around and squeak in. If they dont, it will be unfair to Rodgers. He seems like a good guy and looks like he will be a decent to very good QB. He will never win over the fans if the Packers miss the playoffs two years in a row after going 13-3 when everybody thought up was the only way this team was going(and I dont mean record wise as it is possible to be a better team and be 12-4). His contract would quickly be the only thing everybody talks about and how we miss the good ole days with Favre.

I have said Favre would be better for this year alone. In that, for this year, it was a bad move. Overall, in the big picture, I don't know yet. I support it as I think Favre brought alot of it on himself. TT is no saint and not innocent in it. I have maintained this stance the entire time. Nothing has changed.And nobody who is on the Favre side will admit that this team is more than Brett Favre away right now. They apparently can't admit to being wrong either.

 

[simey]

 

[CalBear]

3. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing how it worked out for the 49ers. Are you suggesting that you expect the Packers to make the playoffs for the next 7 years after this one? That Rodgers will be a HOF QB? If not, what's the point of your comparison?

My point is that the Niners knew they had maybe the best QB of all time, and they let him go because his time had passed and they had a young, promising QB to rebuild the team around. The Niners didn't know that Young would be a HOF QB, and the Packers don't know if Rodgers will be one, either.

 

[zDragon]

I have said since Day 1 that TT is making what is quite possibly the biggest blunder in NFL history.

Packer fans (the real ones, not some of the message board posers in this thread with jealousy based vendettas against Favre) all agree with you. It is criminal what has happened to that franchise.

Again...an of you care to back up this "the real Packer fans" crap?Sorry, I have no jealousy based vendetta against Favre. What am I jealous of?I defended the guy for years and years...there is no vendetta at all.And the majority of fans both on message boards and just about every poll ever taken...do not agree that TT is as bad as you all are claiming.You simply have no facts to back that up.Sure...some of you will talk about people calling into talk radio....ever wonder why usually negative people call in?Heck...2 years ago people were calling in down here to get rid of Jeff Fisher...thats the extreme position people take when people who don't know as much about football as they think they do...call up to talk radio shows to complain because the team is not doing exactly what they want it to be doing.

It would seem to me that TT is the whole reason that the bad D, bad line, etc that you talk about is there. So no matter which side you look at it TT is at fault.Getting rid of #4 was a mistake. Good ol' 4 was one over-time game away from a super bowl on a 3 loss season. Sure he threw the Int in overtime but he was the offense. The rushing game put up a total of about 25-30 yds rushing. The only offense GB had was Favre passing. The giants were putting together good drives and won the TOP battle by about 2 to 1. The giants knew the Packers could not run and just had to find a way to force the mistakes in the passing game. If Grant had busted an 8yd run to start over-time versus a 2yd run there is a lot less chance of Favre throwing the pick. If the running game existed at all versus something like 1 or 2 yds per carry the game could have swung the packers way.The loss was a TEAM loss not all because of Favre as some like to point out. Sure he was trying to make something happen but the whole team failed around him.The packers are absolutely a better team with Favre at QB versus Rodgers. He's proven that this year by going into a brand new system and getting his team into good shape for the play-offs. Rodgers has practiced this offense for awhile now and has done a respectable job this year but I do not see him carrying a team the way Favre did right now. Rodgers is a slightly above average QB and if the rest of the team is sub-par or average the the Packers will be average.

 

[zDragon]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

Why do people insist on using this comparison? It's not the same thing at all.1. Montana was injured for 2 full seasons after the 1990 14-2 season you mentioned. The 49ers turned to Young out of necessity. And by the time Montana was able to play again, Young had just won the NFL MVP and led the 49ers to a 14-2 regular season record and the NFC Championship game. They already knew at that point that they had the best QB in the NFL in Young.2. Yes, the 49ers missed the playoffs in 1991... with a 10-6 record, missing out on wild card tiebreakers. That looks a lot better than how the Packers are likely to end up this year.3. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing how it worked out for the 49ers. Are you suggesting that you expect the Packers to make the playoffs for the next 7 years after this one? That Rodgers will be a HOF QB? If not, what's the point of your comparison?

The two situations are completely different.

 

[ScottyFargo]

3. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing how it worked out for the 49ers. Are you suggesting that you expect the Packers to make the playoffs for the next 7 years after this one? That Rodgers will be a HOF QB? If not, what's the point of your comparison?

My point is that the Niners knew they had maybe the best QB of all time, and they let him go because his time had passed and they had a young, promising QB to rebuild the team around. The Niners didn't know that Young would be a HOF QB, and the Packers don't know if Rodgers will be one, either.

But they knew he wasn't a bust and they knew he could produce for the team. At this point in the season the Packer's don't know if Rodger's will lead the team to a winning record.

 

[zDragon]

Excellent post, but do not expect shonuff to get a clue. He is blind when it comes to his packer homerism. Oh, and he will never admit to be wrong either. Kinda like the clueless GM in Green Bay. I hope TT stays there forever.

You do realize he took over a team that was 4-12 and in just 3 years built them back to a 13-3 team last year, right? How is your GM doing?So you're basically saying you would rather have Jerry Angelo than TT, Awesome

Keep on posting, it affirms my belief in the lack of common sense from most Bear fans.

Also, thanks for the laugh this morning. After Mondays debacle I needed a laugh.

Thompson didn't take over a team that was 4-12. He took over the team after the 2004 season... the Packers were 10-6 in 2004, 10-6 in 2003, 12-4 in 2002, and 12-4 in 2001, an overall run of 44-20, and they made the playoffs all 4 seasons. It was on Thompson's watch that it dropped to 4-12, and the team has an overall record of 30-29 in the four years since he took over. In the 13 seasons prior to Thompson taking over, the Packers did not have a losing season... now they will potentially have 2 losing seasons in 4 years under Thompson. And if they miss the playoffs this year, which seems likely, they will have made the playoffs only once during that span. Excuse me if I'm not as impressed as many of Thompson's supporters in this thread.Given that many Packers fans in this thread have both defended Thompson and said that Rodgers is not to blame for this year's dropoff, but instead the OL, DL, running game, injuries, etc. are to blame... what are Packers fans expecting for next year? Expecting to be back in the playoffs? I would translate that into expecting Ted to shore up the problems in the offseason... right? So what if the Packers miss the playoffs this year and next year? What will it take for Packers fans stop supporting Thompson?

And most real fans realize Thompson blew up the team in 2005...he made mistakes for sure...but that team was going to fall backwards no matter who took over...as Sherman left him with an old roster with little to no depth.We have said that Rodgers is not the main issue. Sure, there is some blame there...a dropoff at the position was expected. Not sure how many times you need to read that before you get it right.

sure, we expected them to be in the playoffs even this year. And will expect it next year too.

But now you are talking what ifs? How about this one. What will it take for the TT bashers to actually support the guy? Anything short of a SB win?

Exactly how small a drop-off did you expect from Rodgers? The passing game is what made the team go. To make the play-offs you would have to expect very little drop-off from a QB that has very little live game experience.If I remember right they were ranked top 3-5 in passing (where the drop-off would occur), 20 or lower in rushing (worse passing game really can't make this a lot better) but overall top 5 offense. The defense was slightly outside the top 10.

This year the running game should be about the same and the defense has dropped 5 spots or so. The biggest drop-off comes with the guy that is basically a rookie.

Seems expectations were a little high with a rookie to me.

 

[Tau837]

3. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing how it worked out for the 49ers. Are you suggesting that you expect the Packers to make the playoffs for the next 7 years after this one? That Rodgers will be a HOF QB? If not, what's the point of your comparison?

My point is that the Niners knew they had maybe the best QB of all time, and they let him go because his time had passed and they had a young, promising QB to rebuild the team around. The Niners didn't know that Young would be a HOF QB, and the Packers don't know if Rodgers will be one, either.

For you to compare Rodgers and what the Packers knew about him to Young and what the 49ers knew about him is completely off base. Rodgers had never started a game and Young had started for 2 seasons, won the most recent NFL MVP award, and led his team to the most recent NFC Championship game. If Favre had gotten hurt for the past two seasons and Rodgers had started those years, led his team to the NFC Championship game last year (like Favre did), and won an MVP award, there would be no debate about Thompson's decision, and your comparison would be valid. But Rodgers had not done anything of the sort, which is why the situations are not comparable.

 

[Phase of the Game]

3. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing how it worked out for the 49ers. Are you suggesting that you expect the Packers to make the playoffs for the next 7 years after this one? That Rodgers will be a HOF QB? If not, what's the point of your comparison?

My point is that the Niners knew they had maybe the best QB of all time, and they let him go because his time had passed and they had a young, promising QB to rebuild the team around. The Niners didn't know that Young would be a HOF QB, and the Packers don't know if Rodgers will be one, either.

Enough of the Young comparisions. Young was 26-9 as a starter for the 49ers before Montana went to KC. Young also threw for 42 TDs and 15 Ints during that period. The 49ers knew what they had in Young much more than what the Packers know they have in Rodgers. Thompson wanted Favre gone and he got what he wanted. Now he has to see how that decison will work out for him.

 

[Phase of the Game]

You don't get rid of a great QB to start a (potentially) good one.

Tell that to the Niners. They got rid of Joe Montana, clearly a better QB than Favre, after a 14-2 season (and a playoff loss to the Giants, coincidentally), and missed the playoffs the next year. Then they made the playoffs seven years in a row, with a minimum of 10 wins each year, and won the Super Bowl with a QB who was destined for the Hall of Fame. Was letting Montana go the wrong decision?

Why do people insist on using this comparison? It's not the same thing at all.1. Montana was injured for 2 full seasons after the 1990 14-2 season you mentioned. The 49ers turned to Young out of necessity. And by the time Montana was able to play again, Young had just won the NFL MVP and led the 49ers to a 14-2 regular season record and the NFC Championship game. They already knew at that point that they had the best QB in the NFL in Young.2. Yes, the 49ers missed the playoffs in 1991... with a 10-6 record, missing out on wild card tiebreakers. That looks a lot better than how the Packers are likely to end up this year.3. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing how it worked out for the 49ers. Are you suggesting that you expect the Packers to make the playoffs for the next 7 years after this one? That Rodgers will be a HOF QB? If not, what's the point of your comparison?

The two situations are completely different.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

All facts,

 

[zDragon]

Can we stop the lame "real packer fan" schtick.You can hate TT or love TT and still be a Packer fan. You can name two starters or 22 starters and still be a real Packer fan. Obviously people who supported getting rid of Favre arent going to want to admit that it was a bad move. Nobody likes to admit they were wrong. Technically you cant even say they are wrong yet. The season isnt over. Rodgers could blow up, Favre could go in the tank and TT would look like a genius. There is still plenty of season left. I hope the Packers can turn this around and squeak in. If they dont, it will be unfair to Rodgers. He seems like a good guy and looks like he will be a decent to very good QB. He will never win over the fans if the Packers miss the playoffs two years in a row after going 13-3 when everybody thought up was the only way this team was going(and I dont mean record wise as it is possible to be a better team and be 12-4). His contract would quickly be the only thing everybody talks about and how we miss the good ole days with Favre.

I have said Favre would be better for this year alone. In that, for this year, it was a bad move. Overall, in the big picture, I don't know yet. I support it as I think Favre brought alot of it on himself. TT is no saint and not innocent in it. I have maintained this stance the entire time. Nothing has changed.And nobody who is on the Favre side will admit that this team is more than Brett Favre away right now. They apparently can't admit to being wrong either.

Not getting it. Seems to me the seasoned vet could get it done in situations that a 1st year starter couldn't. Especially since the seasoned vet carried basically the same team deep into the play-offs last year.

 

[Phase of the Game]

So it was dismal in Green Bay before Favre arrived. And now, in the first season he is gone, the team has a losing record and will miss the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons for it, and QB play is certainly one of them IMO. I think Rodgers has played well, especially for a first year starter, and he has been better than I expected. But I think those that think there has been no dropoff from what it would have been had Favre stayed are wrong.

I think it's early to say that the team will miss the playoffs; they're only one game out of first and they're 3-1 in the division. I think it's fair to say that the team would have been better with Favre this year; what's not clear is whether the team would have been as good in 2009 and 2010 if they'd kept Favre starting in 2008.

Sorry, but you play for the upcoming year. You plan a year ahead knowing that plans change. Taking a 13-3 team and having the possibility of returning the same, or near the same, players the next year far outweighs what might happen in 2009 or 2010. You worry about 2009 when 2009 is here and not before 2008 even begins. All in all, a team should want their best team out there on day one. The NFL, players, and some fans know a team with Favre at QB versus a first year starter is going to be better 99% of the time. No way do I bet on the 1%.

Only problem is...GMs don't just think about the one year. Poor GMs might...but good ones don't.Im still waiting for any of you continuing this to show where anyone just thought they would be better with Rodgers this year?

Good GMs don't run a great QB out of town like TT did and the vast majority of executives in the NFL acknowledge that is what TT did with Favre. TT could have gone one more year with Favre AND Rodgers but TT didn't want to do that. That is the truth and the TT supporters WILL NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THIS even though it is reported more and more by the NFL insiders.

That QB first left town on his own.Some of you act as if TT just told him to get out as soon as he got to town.And the vast majority of executives acknowledge that is what he did? Care to back that up with any substance like a link? I won't hold my breath.TT would have let him back had he never retired and done the I want to come back...no I don't routine. A fact that some of you will never acknowledge no matter how many people tell you its true.And I, and others have acknowledged that TT wanted to see what Rodgers could do and wanted to move on after last season...but they would have taken him back. That much is perfectly clear.

All facts,

They are not facts. Here is a fact.....Thompson didn't make one phone call or attempt to contact Favre prior to his retirement. That sure doesn't make it seem like Thompson was hoping for Favre to return. I also trust what Terry Bradshaw stated last week that it is widely known by NFL insiders that Thompson wanted Favre gone for two years. Others on ESPN have stated that as well. Why would Favre want to go back to GB knowing that Thompson didn't want him back?